Sunday, November 2, 2008

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

1.
This man, convicted of manslaughter*, has been granted a permit to work with children.
In her decision, VCAT judge Marilyn Harbison said that in 1995, the man was drinking with a group in Frankston who mistook a family out for ice cream for a rival ethnic gang.
"After some preliminary heckling, a fight ensued. In the course of the fight one of the members of the family group was attacked viciously by the group," Judge Harbison said.
The killer and three other main offenders punched and kicked the man, before one of the other offenders stabbed him.
*It should have been murder. You don't attack someone so viciously and not expect them to be harmed.

2.
Protests in Brisbane by Aboriginal people (activists?), calling for the release of Lex Wotton, convicted of being the ringleader of the Palm Island riots after the death of Cameron "Mulrunji" Doomadgee.

Holding placards with slogans such as Stop Black Deaths in Custody and Death of Queensland Justice, about 200 activists rallied in Queen Park before marching to state parliament.
Try staying out of custody. It doesn't just happen. Belligerent drunks, or druggies, don't make the most cooperative prisoners.

It's a shame the answer isn't just to let them get on with their own destruction, many of the people involved seem to be intent on it. Whitey should just walk away and leave them to it, but that wouldn't be right would it? Wouldn't be the humane thing to do, there are people in these communities who want the law and order fixed.

3.
Woodridge park killing (south of Brisbane).

Mr Saunders, the uncle of rugby league star Jonathan Thurston, died after a brawl between the two groups in Woodridge's Ewing Park about 1am on Saturday.

Two other Aboriginal men, Harold Bond, 53, and Gordon Willis, 47, were taken to hospital.

Nine Samoan men, aged 15 to 24, faced murder charges in Beenleigh Magistrate's Court over consecutive days earlier this week, sparking rounds of brinkmanship between the groups.
The other side of the story?

Last night on television (ABC News) members of the dead man's family were intervewed and they said that they wanted couselling for their kids after the death as some of the kids saw it.

This is horrible. This can't be happening in Australia? This tribalism. It's not acceptable. How can it be stopped?

Update:
To #2.
News last night announced that some Palm Islanders would be given awards for their assistance in putting out fires and calming people down in the Palm Island riots. I hope that this does not alienate them from their mob.

12 comments:

mythusmage said...

On #1

You can attack someone viciously and not expect him to die. Especially when you're drunk on your ass.

Homicide: When you meant to kill him.

Manslaughter: When you just meant to hit him, and he dies on you.

kae said...

His defence and in mitigation:

Oh gee, wrong person. Oh, oops, sorry, I didn't meant to kill him.

My answer and my question for those two things are:
Wrong person? What are you doing bashing people because you think they are in a gang? It's WRONG.
If you didn't mean to kill him, perhaps you shouldn't have bashed him in the first place.

It really annoys me that so many people get charged with manslaughter because they didn't mean to kill someone - well duh, if you punch someone and their head hits the pavement they can die. Their head wouldn't have hit the pavement if they'd not been punched (this was how a bouncer got off killing someone, which I think was wrong).

I think it's time for the law to be more strict about bashings in particular. If you bash someone and they die it should be murder. You were trying to hurt them.

kae said...

Oh, thanks for the health advice Mythus! I slept most of yesterday, I decided to try a night without tramal for the pain.... a mistake I think. Was exhausted all day and felt like I'd been hit by a truck. I can't blame the Friday Physio session for that, can I?

If I were a horse they'd shoot me.

bruce said...

Could be anything including change of sleeping routine leading to disturbed rest rhythms, Kae. Tell the Physio.

If the Tramal is what gives you a good nights sleep, then take it sensibly. Funny it had opposite effect for me - no sleep awake all night, fizz pop whirrr...

Suddenly stopping meds when a routine is established not good either.

Take care of yourself. Accept that we may need to go easier as we all get older (yuk).

kae said...

Hi Bruce
I stopped taking the tramal on Friday night because I wanted to see if I'd still get a decent night's sleep (I've got shoulder problems with tendons and stuff and I get pins and needles and aches and pains... and I sleep on my side!).
I think it was a mistake to stop the tramal Friday nite. I've only been taking them for, um, since Wednesday week before last, a week and a half, when I went to the GP and said I needed something for the aches at night. (Disc problem, too, but it seems to be sorted out now... sorta.)
Anyway, I slept most of yesterday as I felt like I'd been hit by a bus. Twice. And I was really sleepy and tired.

Bruce, I really don't need to know that this could be status quo as I get older!

My brain gets fuzzy with the tramal, still hurt but don't care. Makes me sleepy. However, once I'm asleep with it I don't feel pain when I roll over. That can be bad if you fall asleep on a cushion on the tiled floor! Bed's OK.

The pup has developed selective hearing, too. Little belly-bean. He can still squeeze through the dogwire fence... I can't wait for him to grow up, to see how big he gets and what he looks like.
Meggie's not happy. She's coming when I call her. She's a smart cookie, but her place in the pack has been usurped by Floyd.

I have to go horizontal soon, get up at 5AM, and I'm still really tired.

Anonymous said...

I'm a big fan of the Islamic justice system. Find them guilty, sentence them to death and allow the family of the victim to decide if the process continues. Mehaul.

kae said...

Hi Mehaul, you back?
Hmm. No. There's too much bad stuff, unjust stuff, which goes along with the islamic law and justice system.

I think I'll stick with the one we have, thanks. We just need the Judges to have a bit of a wake-up somehow.

Steve at the Pub said...

I've never had a problem with cutting hands off theives, or heads off killers.

Stoning adulterers is another matter.

Difficult to guess what percentage of charges laid against doormen are justified, but most everything which gets into the news is for something most everyone would have done in the same circumstances.

Anonymous said...

I can respect totally your point of view. The stoning thing for example. But it's not the judges, it's the bleeding heart lawyers strolling the corridors of power with their own PC religion. The judges can only work with the legislation that these puritans contrive. I think. Mehaul

kae said...

Hi SATP
Hmm. The doorman thing may have been a bad example. But it's an excuse - "I didn't mean to kill him, I just bashed him and stomped him...." Yeah, what? For shits and giggles?
There is perhaps more to this whole Woodridge thing than has been reported, but it's started somewhere - and the mistaken identity of the victim of the bloke getting the kiddie permit still doesn't excuse what was done (there's got to be more to that, too).
I just wonder where it all ends, SATP. Gang stuff. People/kids attacking cyclists in the city, bashing them unconscious and dumping them in the river leaving them permanently brain damaged. No provocation (not that provocation is any justification). Why? How to stop this?
I think a lot of these kids have no idea of consequences, even at mid teen-age.

Steve at the Pub said...

Quite obviously definitions of "manslaughter" and "murder" require some amending.

"Manslaughter" should be reserved for when no direct harm was intentded, but death resulted from carlessless or negligence. Eg, careless drivers running into & killing pedestrians, hunters firing random shots which kill someone, & so on.

Deliberately getting stuck into someone, who then dies... well... who is to say death wasn't the intended outcome?

"Manslaughter" should not be a defence ploy. "My client got stuck into an innocent passerby & belted this passerby up for a bit of a laugh, however even though the passerby died as a result of the beating, my client sure didn't mean to kill him"

If direct harm is intended, which results in death, it should be "murder". (eg, belting someone so savagely they die)

kae said...

I agree SATP.
The definition of manslaughter seems to be very rubbery as far as what's considered manslaughter and what's considered murder.

I'm no lawyer (famous last words), but I think I have a fair idea of what's right and wrong, what's fair and what's not. I agree wholeheartedly with your statement about being charged with manslaughter. If you bash someone you meant to hurt them. The idiots being bred and dragged up these days don't seem to have any concept of cause and effect, not even as young adults.
In your job do you see this stupidity and lack of judgement much?

Hi Mythus!
SATP put it much better than I did. Sometimes I just have trouble expressing myself.